Fans - critic or assassin?

"When we judge or criticise another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical" - Unknown

Jesse Ryder in full flow

Why is it that so many fans feel the need to be critical, bordering on the vitriolic? That's not to confuse constructive comment or well-reasoned and supported argument - more the conveyance of ownership and the personal attacks, not of sporting ability but character and personality. Are we so baseless that we take delight in the derision of our sporting 'heroes'?

The deciding New Zealand versus South Africa T20 brought such comment to the fore - the Black Caps capitulated as their African opponents have done at ICC tournaments in the past. For once, the clichéd choke is not too strong a word. With five overs to go New Zealand needed less than a run a ball with seven wickets in hand, and on a ground that only just accommodates a full sized rugby pitch, yet in the ensuing 24 hours comment centred solely on Jesse Ryder.

Ryder's an easy target. He has just returned from another injury layoff, enjoys a pint or 20 and thinks a steak and cheese pie is a well-balanced meal - but the man can wield the willow. He hit 52 at close to 125 and top scored for the match after not donning the black kit for the first time since New Zealand upset Australia in Hobart last December. Without question he made errors, big ones, but if you believe much of what has been written and preached he was the only Kiwi on the pitch. The condemnation has been direct, swift and condescending.

Little has been made of the soft dismissals of the other top order batsmen or the inability of capable middle order players to even lay bat on ball - scribes and punters lay the blame squarely at Ryder's feet. Yes, he fumbled his way through his last few runs but he has no track record of putting personal milestones above team outcomes - Twitter and talkback radio would tell you otherwise. Much of the comment was baseless at best; personal abuse at gutter level. But, the sentiment that struck me was from a former player, himself the target on too many occasions during a career that never quite reached the pinnacle of its true potential.

Craig McMillan, former Black Cap turned television commentator and radio pundit, was unerring in his criticism of Ryder and his pursuit of personal glory, whilst largely neglecting the mishaps of others. He's a paid 'expert' asked to give his considered opinion - no issues there. But, and it's one of JLo proportions, the crucifixion of Ryder is coming from a man who himself was widely criticised for his girth, his fitness and his propensity to throw it away in a blaze of glory. The same man who, when people questioned his form in test cricket near the sunset of his career, answered in the best way - with a test century but then commented that his innings should gag a few commentators - how quickly we forget about the glasshouses in which we all live.....

Whilst Ryder is so frequently the target of condescension and personal attacks, there are many others scattered throughout our great game. Brash South African, sorry - Englishman, Kevin Pietersen, Australian captain Michael Clarke and Brendon McCullum all suffer the same fate. Outspoken New Zealand wicketkeeper Adam Parore and the aforementioned McMillan were never far from the airwaves and column inches in their day either. But why is it that certain players draw unparalleled criticism whilst others seemingly walk on water, even when they have muddied them so frequently?

Why do 'fans' continually partake in the character assassination and unsupported criticism of our sporting 'heroes'? Is it our right? In the end are players, coaches, managers and teams accountable to the paying public? As we invest more heavily in inflated ticket prices, merchandise, sponsors' products and pay television, maybe they are - though that's for another day. Constructive comment and considered opinion are fair but why must we cross the boundary into personal attacks and vitriol - is it seen in any other endeavour (politics excepted)? Is it envy, jealousy or the unparalleled riches that players earn while the 'common man' (and fan) puts his nose to the grindstone in a 'real' job? It's an open question - I have no definitive answer....

Scribes and casual bloggers do it too; it's not just the domain of the man on the street. Unfortunately, emotion sells - would anyone buy a newspaper that leads with 'We lose - no one's to blame'? In a few short months of writing this blog I've realised it's easier to criticise on personal feelings than compose a considered argument.

In today’s digital, social media-obsessed world there are now endless avenues open for comment  – the issue is that most are anonymous, so balanced debate is often lacking. Most fans love to comment on the stars of their sport, especially in Aotearoa where most are easily accessible to the public. Twitter, Facebook, talkback radio (with SMS comment – I still don’t get it), blogs, forums and article comments, among others, all provide an endless source of unmitigated banter. But, here is the kicker – on most occasions, in New Zealand at least, when our side wins talkback, and most others, is often slow; when we lose to France at a RWC or are farcical in our efforts at the wicket, every couch critic wants his two cents and his pound of flesh – no matter the lack of logic in the argument, heated as it often is.

Most of us will never play at the highest level, or commentate or write about our great game to audiences too innumerable to count – more the pity. Why then do we confuse personal sporting performance with criticisms of personality - seldom do the two meet? Very few of us have insights into the players; their work ethic, attitude and personality. Our view is largely from the outside, yet fan comment often bases thoughts on what we see and our perceptions; not fact or reasoned opinion - a little context goes a long way. 

Many of us have love-hate relationships with our cricketing personalities – others simply love to hate them. Whatever your opinion, most fans are just that – they love their teams and want nothing more but for them to do well – sorry, WIN! The paradox is that a minority have a confused way of showing it. 

For all his faults in the decider, Ryder did not lose New Zealand the game – maybe South Africa should even get a little credit. Will the same punters who offered little more than baseless abuse jump back on the bandwagon if Ryder flays the South African quicks in the test series? Ryder appeared to have lost a little weight in his injury absence yet people still made comment about his running – did punters say the same things of the beer swilling Tasmanian, David Boon? No, the portly Boon still holds legend status for his Ashes tour drinking antics – he’s seen as the quintessential Aussie bloke.
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time for cheerleading either - Channel 9 are cringe worthy to all but a select groups of Aussie sycophants. Likewise, no-one wants to hear the Super Rugby player political correctness or the ‘netball was the winner on the day’ speech – as fans it’s about having an opinion, not a baseless rant.

If you think my ramblings are off the mark, I'm open to both destructive criticism and vitriol. Post a comment or hunt me down on Twitter (@aotearoaxi) - I don't live in the public eye, I prefer the anonymity of a faceless moniker. Let’s hope that irony is not lost…

This post also appears in the April edition of SPIN-off Cricket.

Run fat boy run!

Taylor limps off retired hurt

Friday, 27 January 2011; morning session, day 2 - only test versus Zimbabwe: New Zealand captain Ross Taylor hobbles off McLean Park, Napier, after a subdued but considered 122 against a Zimbabwe side still looking to qualify for an ICC test ranking.

As a New Zealand cricket supporter, that should be music to your ears, but for Ross Taylor who was walking off lame. Forced to retire hurt with a torn calf, Taylor will miss the rest of the Zimbabwe tour, if not the early stages of South Africa’s visit to our shores. It was also the first time, in New Zealand at least, that the error of the ICC’s decision to implement the no-runner rule came into focus, though in this instance it is unlikely to have a large effect on the final result. 

In essence, no, in actuality, the changes to the runner rule mean that at international level at least, an injured batsman is forced to either hit out or limp off - no runner is allowed so his wicket is lost. In Taylor’s case, he would likely have left the field anyway, but what if he had simply strained his calf as opposed to tearing it? What if Taylor had been on 22 instead of 122, and New Zealand were four or five down for under 100? Would the same indifference to the new rule have been shown then?

Prior to the introduction of the no-runner rule late last year, an injured batsman could call for a runner and continue his innings albeit that the opposing captain had to agree; generally that was little more than a formality. The ICC thought it was being manipulated and abused so changed the rule, yet the same power brokers previously implemented the 15 degree rule so now you have to throw a baseball pitch to be called for chucking! Double standards? An off spinners most deadly delivery is now the one that is delivered with a bent arm and goes the other way – has that not been abused as well?

A case for pinch runners?

There’s plenty of evidence that the runner rule has been exploited for years, but should a change exclude genuine injuries? Our own Jesse Ryder regularly took advantage of the loop holes in the rule, but not once did another captain show any leadership and question the runner’s use. There are numerous other offenders, Arjuna Ranatunga chief amongst them, who faked an injury and got a runner to compensate for their lack of physical prowess and couch potato fitness. Ranatunga would often get a serve from opposition players - I recall Ian Healy giving him a little Aussie mongrel in a spiteful ODI. However, Healy was happy to use a runner a couple of times in his career. Nothing unusual in that, but did David Boon, his physical equivalent, come to the crease? No, Dean Jones appeared in the middle - a thoroughbred replacing a Clydesdale?

The ICC’s decision was forced on them by a captain finally denying a batsman a runner. If such leadership had been shown more regularly, would those stretching the rules have tried so often? Many of the issues were caused by ill-prepared players getting cramps and asserting they needing running help – Andrew Strauss put an end to that.  He refused South Africa’s Graeme Smith, already having scored 100, a runner for cramp in the 2009 Champions Trophy, and more power to him. But as an isolated incident, his decision no doubt forced the ICC’s hand. Would it have caused the same change in the corridors of the ICC if Shakib Al Hasan had refused Brendan Taylor the same opportunity?

Cricket pundits the world over have varied views on the new rule – bowlers generally approve, batsmen not so much. Given how much the game has swayed in the batsmen’s’ favour in the past two decades that’s understandable. Jesse Ryder is not a fan. Given the comments of both John Wright and Ross Taylor his path back to international cricket could be a long one – no side can afford to carry an injury prone batsman anymore. But, does the no-runner rule unfairly disadvantage the batting side? Yes. If Taylor was in the early stages of his innings when the injury occurred and was unable to run, New Zealand have effectively lost his wicket. It also robs the paying public of entertainment; if injured players don’t retire hurt they can often do little else but stand and swing –I can turn on ESPN and watch the MLB if that was what I wanted from sport.

And to address the protestations of the bowling fraternity, no you don’t get a replacement, but in the modern game how many in the stands come to watch you? Bowlers with the genius of Warne, Marshall, Akram and Ambrose have largely disappeared from the game – none but a small minority would bring me, or other spectators, through the gates.

Players will always find loopholes in crickets laws, it's human nature – the 15 degree bowling law illustrates that, but should we penalise those who are legitimately injured? Should we force an injured batsman to retire and his side effectively lose a wicket? If he stays it's hardly a great watch when all he can do is try to bludgeon boundaries without any thought of running (much like T20, which given its current success might be what authorities want!) – that’s not what I want to see at test level. And if none of that resonates with you, surely the mayhem and confusion that ensued when runners were in the middle made the game a more interesting spectacle – comedy on the sporting stage?